ReviewFrontiers in oncology2022
The Clinicopathological Significance and Prognostic Value of Androgen Receptor in Endometrial Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunohistochemical evaluation of androgen receptor expression in endometrial carcinoma and its clinicopathological significance.Diagnostic pathology · 2026Article
- Article
- Is there an association between hyperandrogenic states in women and endrometrial cancer? A narrative review.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2026Review
- Androgen receptor signalling in non-prostatic malignancies: challenges and opportunities.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2025Review
- Steroid sulfatase and sulfotransferases in the estrogen and androgen action of gynecological cancers: current status and perspectives.Essays in biochemistry · 2024Review
- Circulating adrenal 11-oxygenated androgens are associated with clinical outcome in endometrial cancer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Androgen Signaling in Uterine Diseases: New Insights and New Targets.Biomolecules · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of androgen receptor (AR) in evaluating the prognosis of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) remains controversial. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to assess whether AR expression improves EC survival outcomes. Methods: We searched related articles published before August 2021 in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The association between AR expression and patient prognosis was estimated with hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The review is registered on PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42021268591. Results: Ten studies including 1,485 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. The results showed that AR expression in EC tissues was associated with a better survival in crude analyses (HR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.32-2.02, P < 0.001). However, no significant relation was found after the adjustment of the confounding factors (HR = 1.68, 95% CI = 0.75-3.75, P = 0.205). In subgroup analyses, grade 1-2 disease, stage I-II disease, negative lymph node status, and lack of the lymphovascular invasion were more common in AR-positive groups (OR = 0.47, 0.48, 0.37, and 0.57; 95% CI = 0.45-0.62, 0.35-0.65, 0.24-0.56, and 0.37-0.89). Furthermore, AR expression was more common in endometrioid cancers (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.79-3.20). Conclusions: AR expression is significantly associated favorable characteristics including low-grade disease, early-stage disease, negative lymph node status, and lack of the lymphovascular invasion and a specific histology-endometrioid cancer. However, AR is not an independent prognostic factor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.